Under a bipartisan Senate framework, Democrats say, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano would have final say over whether the border is secure enough to put 11 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.

...Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the lead Democratic sponsor of the bipartisan immigration reform framework unveiled this past week, said Napolitano should decide.

"What we’ve proposed is that the DHS secretary, whomever it is, will have final say on [whether] whatever metrics we proposes are met," Schumer said. "We think those metrics will be quite objective."

...The Senate framework would create a commission made up of governors, attorneys general and community leaders from Southwestern border states to recommend when border security goals have been met.

They could not render the final judgment, however, because lawmakers fear that would violate the Constitution.

McCain says the commission nevertheless will have a significant influence.

"The Constitution requires that action taken by the Congress is not dictated by a commission. We will be guided to a large degree by their conclusions and recommendations," he said.

The bipartisan Senate group envisions metrics for border security that can be objectively verified, such as target numbers for border patrol agents and unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles.

"They will be objective so there’s not that much leeway," Schumer said. "What we envision is that because they [are] objective, the advisory committee and DHS will in all likelihood agree."

In the article, Sen. John Cornyn says, "my constituents are not going to accept a Washington bureaucrat making a representation the border is secure when they know it’s not true. So that’s unacceptable."

And, Frank Sharry (see the link) says: "Having the DHS secretary decide rather than (Arizona Gov.) Jan Brewer decide is obviously a no-brainer... having clear metrics be the goalpost rather than the moving goalpost that Republicans have been engaged in the last five years is much better.... But any condition that leaves room for mischief is a potential problem."

The article also contains this:

Another is the question of how to handle the future flow of workers for so-called low-skill jobs in meat processing, hospitality and other service industries. Some lawmakers say disagreements over a guest worker program blew up a comprehensive reform bill in the Senate in 2007.

Maybe one day a reporter or politician will endeavor to find out what those in such jobs think about millions of new competitors.